KLYS v. TCKE

FCMC 10356/2013

[2026] HKFC 107

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO 10356 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

________________________

R U L I N G
(Leave to Appeal)

________________________

1.  This is the respondent father’s application for leave to appeal against the order made by me on 15 December 2025.  This order was itself originated from an order made by Master Stanley Ho on 18 November 2025 allowing the petitioner mother to take the two children of the family out of Hong Kong temporarily for about 14 days, from 20 December 2025 to 4 January 2026, for the purpose of vacation in Japan and Canada.  

2.  The father was dissatisfied with the Master’s order and appealed against it.  The appeal was heard by me on 15 December 2025, when I agreed with the Master’s decision and dismissed the appeal.  The father then took out a summons on 14 January 2026, seeking leave to appeal against my Order.  

3.  After having read the father’s draft grounds of appeal and written statement, in the interest of proportionality of costs and court’s time, I decided to fix a hearing to deal with the leave to appeal instead of having it to be dealt with by way of paper disposal. 

4.  After having heard further from the father today, I have no doubt that he has no merit in the application.  As such, it ought to be dismissed.  

5.  First, the application for leave was taken out on 14 January 2026, that was after the conclusion of the trip allowed by the court.  In other words, the trip had been completed on 14 January 2026 and as such, the issue was no longer a live issue. It has become academic.  The court simply would not deal with an academic issue.  This ground alone is sufficient to dispose of the matter. 

6.  Secondly, as said in my ruling on 15 December 2025, the trip was beneficial to the children.  This was agreed to by the father at the hearing.  There were issues if the father should be able to know the itinerary and the source of fund.  In my view, the itinerary issue was just a minor issue.  The mother also confirmed that the funds were from her mother and she would not seek the father for reimbursement.   The father also raised the complaint that the mother had withheld information regarding the children from him.  The father repeatedly claimed that the mother had lied or misled the Court in her affirmations.  In fact, the father said the mother had not asked him regarding the vacation.  Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the father objected to the application before the Master.   Further, given that this was only a 14-day trip, I fail to see how this should be a block to a vacation trip that even the father agreed was beneficial to the children.   This issue, even if true, should not be a bargaining chip.  I considered that balancing all factors to allow the trip was in the best interest of the children.  

7.  The father submits today that there has been serious parental alienation on the part of the mother.  Yet, the father is not able to say if a refusal of the trip would help to improve the situation or it would worsen.  In my view, it would not improve.  

8.  With that in mind, the grounds of the father of: (1)  Fundamental procedural injustice;  (2) Failure to give adequate reasons or engage with material evidence of perjury and parental alienation;  (3) Misdirection of welfare principles:  erroneous balancing of “ travel vs make-up access”;  (4) Ignoring clinically diagnosed parental alienation and litigation abuse over seven years;  (5) Treating false affirmations as “not important in children’s cases”,  even if any one of them is true or arguable, it is of little weight in the sense that it should stand in the way of a 14-day trip.  

9.  For these reasons, the father’s intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and ought to be dismissed with costs.